USA V. JAIME VEGA, No. 18-10495 (9th Cir. 2019)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 16 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-10495 D.C. No. 1:11-cr-00318-DAD BAM-1 v. JAIME VEGA, AKA Jimmy Johnson, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 11, 2019** Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. Jaime Vega appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 18-month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Vega argues that the district court erred by failing to provide specific * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). reasons for his above-Guidelines sentence. Because Vega did not raise this objection in the district court, we review for plain error. See United States v. Miqbel, 444 F.3d 1173, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006). The record demonstrates that the district court imposed the sentence after considering Vega’s history and characteristics, particularly Vega’s very poor history on supervision. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). The district court adequately explained its reasons for imposing the above-Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Vega next contends that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The 18-month sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) sentencing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including Vega’s history on supervision. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. AFFIRMED. 2 18-10495

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.